[scrilla]

(I'm responding to a part of this thread which is not realted to gay marriage and applies to both homosexuality and heterosexuality).

Originally Posted by edEx

Once again, the vast majority of 16 year olds who have sex are having sex with people close to their own age.

Do you have issues with reading comprehension?

Instead of insulting people (a common theme in this thread), perhaps you should consider something; that a majority is only that; not ALL. It's perfectly legal for a much older person to have sex with a sixteen-year-old adolescent.

I for one, certainly don't find that remotely acceptable. There are many predatory and manipulative people who keep their activities within the law and I don't want people of such a young age to have to deal with them.

Originally Posted by marjangles

A 16 year old is capable of being taken advantage of

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by marjangles

but is equally as capable of consenting to sex with a 50 year old willingly.

Yes, but should a 50 year old be seeking a 16 year old as a sexual partner? Why would they do this? Why would they want someone so immature? Would that 16 year old's parents consider this to be a reasonable situation or would they be more likely to wonder why some aged creep is targeting their teenager?

[koantemplation]

Originally Posted by marjangles

Well you're wrong about marriage being religious because the majority of marriages in this country have nothing to do with religion whatsoever. In fact every marriage in this country is a civil affair, you can dress it up with as much religion as you like but you're not married until you sign the civil register.

And the fact that some religions see homosexuality as wrong still doesn't explain why I shouldn't be allowed to get married. Please explain the relevance of what a religious view of homosexuality has to do with me being able to marry.

I don't see any value in a non religious 'Marriage'.

The whole point of Marriage is to link 2 souls together.

Other wise you might as well just be two people in a relationship.

[koantemplation]

Originally Posted by Glowbot

Straight people have civil Marriages..

Yes and people had to fight for the right to have non religious straight marriages too.

Because in the past marriage was just for the religious.

[marjangles]

Originally Posted by koantemplation

I don't see any value in a non religious 'Marriage'.

The whole point of Marriage is to link 2 souls together.

Other wise you might as well just be two people in a relationship.

Since when was civil marriage about uniting souls? What you're talking about is holy matrimony which is a religious rite. Marriage is about uniting two people together.

[Glowbot]

Originally Posted by koantemplation

I don't see any value in a non religious 'Marriage'.

The whole point of Marriage is to link 2 souls together.

Other wise you might as well just be two people in a relationship.

Gosh, that's quite a statement.

You don't see value in an atheist marriage?

Frankly I see all marriages as equal, whether religious or not.

[marjangles]

Originally Posted by koantemplation

Yes and people had to fight for the right to have non religious straight marriages too.

Because in the past marriage was just for the religious.

It's not that marriage was just for the religious at all, it was that you had to go through a religious ceremony if you wanted to get married. But that was only true for a relatively short time and civil marriage has been available in this country for nearly 2 centuries.

Marriage has never been just for the religious.

[Glowbot]

Originally Posted by koantemplation

Yes and people had to fight for the right to have non religious straight marriages too.

Because in the past marriage was just for the religious.

So you did know that marriage wasn't a purely religious affair all along?

[koantemplation]

Originally Posted by Glowbot

Gosh, that's quite a statement.

You don't see value in an atheist marriage?

Frankly I see all marriages as equal, whether religious or not.

I see all marriage as equal, as in equally of little value.

It's the same as my view of love.

Either love is something objective, with rules, or it is just subjective and we make it up as we go along.

[koantemplation]

Originally Posted by Glowbot

So you did know that marriage wasn't a purely religious affair all along?

As far as I know it was originally religious.

[BastardBeaver]

Originally Posted by koantemplation

As I said. They (the religious people) care.

It affects them because they believe they will go to hell if they don't try to stop homosexuality and gay marriage.

What if they tried but failed?

[koantemplation]

Originally Posted by BastardBeaver

What if they tried but failed?

I don't know, it depends on what their religion believes or if God exists and what he/she wants.

A caring God, probably wouldn't have created gay people to then say it was wrong.

An uncaring God, would say that they failed so will go to hell.

Personally I believe we only live once so being gay is neither wrong or right, and marriage has no meaning.

I'm just trying to explain why some religious people believe marriage for same sex couples is wrong.

[koantemplation]

The idea of 'Till death us do part' should not be in religious ceremonies.

Because surely if you believe in the idea of heaven then you will be with that 'soul' or person forever.

[Glowbot]

Originally Posted by koantemplation

As far as I know it was originally religious.

You started your last claim with 'as far as I know' too.

It was mainly about owning women as property, but society changes.

It has always been about society, and its always been about couples (although it has been polygamous too).

[koantemplation]

Originally Posted by Glowbot

You started your last claim with 'as far as I know' too. It wasn't.

It was originally about owning women as property, society changes.

It has always been about society, and its always been about couples (although it has been polygamous too).

What you have said doesn't prove it wasn't religious in origin.

It all depends when you believe religion started.

Anyway my point is that all this proves that marriage has no meaning.

[Glowbot]

Originally Posted by koantemplation

What you have said doesn't prove it wasn't religious in origin.

It all depends when you believe religion started.

Anyway my point is that all this proves that marriage has no meaning.

No it doesn't, it has always had meaning, it just proves it changes.
The basis of respecting a couples commitment has always existed in many forms.

It's nothing to do with when religion started. Man invented religion, and marriage, and religion hijacked marriage. Religion didn't invent anything.

If it predates Christianity, then certainly there is no reason why they should seek to claim ownership, and that goes for other religions too.

[koantemplation]

Originally Posted by Glowbot

No it doesn't, it has always had meaning, it just proves it changes.
The basis of respecting a couples commitment has always existed in many forms.

It's nothing to do with when religion started. Man invented religion, and marriage, and religion hijacked marriage. Religion didn't invent anything.

If it predates Christianity, then certainly there is no reason why they should seek to claim ownership, and that goes for other religions too.

Subjective meaning is no meaning at all.

[Glowbot]

Originally Posted by koantemplation

Subjective meaning is no meaning at all.

I know you meant to be deep there, but tosh.
Through it all, it's always been a legal institution defined by society. It just so happens at some points society was ruled by religions.
You don't even have to have a wedding ceremony to be legally married, marriage is mainly civil.

[edEx]

Originally Posted by scrilla

Instead of insulting people (a common theme in this thread), perhaps you should consider something; that a majority is only that; not ALL. It's perfectly legal for a much older person to have sex with a sixteen-year-old adolescent.

I explain a point three times, yet three times the explanation is deliberately ignored. The equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting LA LA LA. If someone is deliberately refusing to acknowledge new information because it contradicts their preconceptions then they need to be challenged for doing that. That's not being insulting.

And yes, it's perfectly legal for a 50 year old to have sex with a 16 year old, although I still fail to see why that should mean the age of consent should be raised only for same-sex partners. To believe so is to imply that 16 year old straight boys and girls know who they are and 16 year old gay boys and girls do not. That's incredibly patronising nonsense and should quite rightly be dismissed for what it is.

[edEx]

Originally Posted by koantemplation

I don't see any value in a non religious 'Marriage'.

The whole point of Marriage is to link 2 souls together.

Other wise you might as well just be two people in a relationship.

That's your opinion, and of course you're free to use that tenet when deciding how to live your own life.

The problem comes when you try to extend your tenet into my life, when I don't believe the same way you do. We're both adults, we're both citizens. The state has a duty to accommodate us both.

[Kolin Klingon]

Originally Posted by scrilla

(I'm responding to a part of this thread which is not realted to gay marriage and applies to both homosexuality and heterosexuality).


Instead of insulting people (a common theme in this thread), perhaps you should consider something; that a majority is only that; not ALL. It's perfectly legal for a much older person to have sex with a sixteen-year-old adolescent.

I for one, certainly don't find that remotely acceptable. There are many predatory and manipulative people who keep their activities within the law and I don't want people of such a young age to have to deal with them.



Absolutely.


Yes, but should a 50 year old be seeking a 16 year old as a sexual partner? Why would they do this? Why would they want someone so immature? Would that 16 year old's parents consider this to be a reasonable situation or would they be more likely to wonder why some aged creep is targeting their teenager?

Yes but why are you posting this now and on a gay related thread? If, as indeed it does, equally apply to gay people and heterosexual people, then it is just something you personally have an issue with but nothing to do with this thread.

In fact, this thread is not even about the age of consent but about marriage. So why bring up this issue about older people having sex quite legally with younger people on a thread about gay marriage?

It really does scream of hidden homophobia as this sort of thing just has nothing to do with people getting married.

Further: as this is a gay related thread why is this sort of thing only ever brought up on gay threads? No matter how many disclaimers about it applying to heterosexuals as well, this 'old bloke screwing young sweet innocent virginal 16 year old man turning gay against his and his mother's will', always gets slipped in.

[Kolin Klingon]

Originally Posted by edEx

That's your opinion, and of course you're free to use that tenet when deciding how to live your own life.

The problem comes when you try to extend your tenet into my life, when I don't believe the same way you do. We're both adults, we're both citizens. The state has a duty to accommodate us both.

The religious (some of) are trying to STOP gay people getting married - Gay people are NOT forcing anyone to be married to the same sex.

All gay people want is the same as heterosexual to be able to have the freedom to live their lives as they wish just like heterosexuals are currently allowed, nothing more. Religious people (Some of) are just out to stop that.

They are clearly the aggressors and wrong. Especially when they can't even prove their own argument about a God, leave alone any further argument based on such nonsense. They are of course free to think and imagine anything they like, but others don't have to listen to them or take them seriously.

[edEx]

Originally Posted by Kolin Klingon

Further: as this is a gay related thread why is this sort of thing only ever brought up on gay threads? No matter how many disclaimers about it applying to heterosexuals as well, this 'old bloke screwing young sweet innocent virginal 16 year old man turning gay against his and his mother's will', always gets slipped in.

They also never seem to grasp the idea that a 16 year old gay man can be the "giver" in that situation rather than the "taker". I suppose because that doesn't quite go with their beliefs that all gay men are predatory rapists out to pervert the nation's children.

Anywaaayyy....that's enough of the age of consent thread hijack IMO. Back to something that is relevant to current events....

[edEx]

Originally Posted by Kolin Klingon

The religious (some of) are trying to STOP gay people getting married - Gay people are NOT forcing anyone to be married to the same sex.

All gay people want is the same as heterosexual to be able to have the freedom to live their lives as they wish just like heterosexuals are currently allowed, nothing more. Religious people (Some of) are just out to stop that.

They are clearly the aggressors and wrong. Especially when they can't even prove their own argument about a God, leave alone any further argument based on such nonsense. They are of course free to think and imagine anything they like, but others don't have to listen to them or take them seriously.

This is all completely true, and the sad fact is that the leaders of the major churches know it. That's why they've been spreading misinformation (i.e. lies) claiming how churches will be FORCED to marry gay couples, because otherwise how do they try and make it matter to their followers?

Truth is, when the law changes to allow same-sex couples to marry it will have one and only one effect:-

Some same-sex couples will get married.

And that's it. The entire result. Nothing else will change.

[Aftershow]

Originally Posted by Styker

though I do plan on learning a lot more on religion generally, one of the main reasons why, is so I can rebutt things as much as I can on politics which I do know a lot on

Good luck with that.

[koantemplation]

Originally Posted by edEx

That's your opinion, and of course you're free to use that tenet when deciding how to live your own life.

The problem comes when you try to extend your tenet into my life, when I don't believe the same way you do. We're both adults, we're both citizens. The state has a duty to accommodate us both.

So why get married if you admit that the word has no meaning, because the meaning has been changed so often to suit whoever is in power at the time?